Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

Take a look at the distribution of assets and obligations amongst individuals by age. It's skewing ever further away from the young, limiting entrepreneurship, innovation, fecundity.
Fiscal balance and helicopter money can't address this. It needs a bonfire of interest protecting regulation that goes to housing and upward. When 20 somethings can't buy a home and start a family, 30 somethings lack the equity to bootstrap their own business.

I am a business man not an economist. Should it happen that one of the business I own faces a Helicopter Money event in the country in which it operates, I would not invest further to capture a bigger share the helicopter money. Because helicopter money is finite, it MAY boost consumption but only till the money is spent, the money will eventually find its way to the more wealthy members of society who will then save it. I'd buy gold as I know one burst of helicopter money will be followed by another and another.....
How big is the bust needed before so called policy makers disguised as free marketeers realise that the amount of money in the system is not the problem?

only with new debt used for financing useful investments that help restore growth, we will exit this sitution of stagnation, is simple, is how economy Works, plain an simple, if tis messures come with a reestructuring od debt that can not be paid the results would be far more fast. if this measurescome with helicopter money, the faster wie eill restore growth

If this is the case against HM, long live HM. A central bank can rise its equity capital any time by simply 'printing money'. or crediting its own balance sheet. It does NOT need to sell reserves etc. You have a problem with that? Furthermore aggregate demand is truly low in many countries, and structural reforms are no cure for this at all! If Mr Heise doesn't see it, its because he has a Germanocentric view of the world. The logic of "not curing a disease in order not to weaken the incentives to prevent the disease in the future" is a sick logic. Germany is not growing faster than Italy because it is more flexible but because it is exporting depression to the world and importing growth by stealing demand with its trade surplus. you call it virtue we call it 'beggar thy neighbour'.

Any effort that tries to connect the dots between micro-economic trends and macro-economic results as if these relate to why we need more money without debt is a tale of fish out of water.
Sec-stag is REAL. NIRP is REAL. Debt-Overhangs are REAL ( more debt than money to pay the debt)
According to Dr. William White , former BIS chief of monetary and economic policy - the central banks are tool-less today. Gotta recognize that and the CB's become the policy IMPLEMENTATION tool, and not the DECIDER on public policy..
So, what to do?
The major failures here and nominally as presented by Adair Turner is that they posit the central bank infusing the helicopter money ....... WHERE?
They do not get that the central banking transmission mechanism is fatally flawed as policy.
The US' Kucinich-AMI proposal is very clear.
The Monetary Authority determines the additional GDP potential that CANNOT be gained through the existing money supply and authorizes "public money" seigniorage as the revenue source for government in place of more public debt.
Public Money in place of Public Debt.
It's that simple.
Let's Get It Done.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/2990/text

This "case against helicopter money" misses the point. It isn't because expenditures are being postponed because people expect prices to be lower in the future that is the primary case for helicopter money, it is that the effective lower bound on nominal interest rates combined with the lack of fiscal room in many countries is constraining what conventional policies can do. In order to make monetary policy as effective as it can be, policy rates need to be clear of the effective lower bound. For that to happen, it appears as though inflation needs to be increased. For inflation to rise either strong aggregate demand needs to be produced--something that has proved elusive of late--or "outside money" is needed. That's the foundation of the case for helicopter money. That said, I do take the point that using helicopter money introduces moral hazard problems and opens a pandora's box that central bankers will have to think long and hard about.

I had the good fortune of attending one of Lord Adair Turner’s talks. He gave an example of how helicopter money could be subtly disguised. The Treasury could issue zero coupon perpetual bonds that the Bank of England would purchase. Since these were zero-coupon, there was no cost to the government. And since these were perpectual, there was no repayment of principal. The government then could spend the money raised from the bond issue as tax rebates, or simply send a cheque to every household. And all these achieved without increasing the fiscal deficit.

Firstly, the Bank of England, through its incorporated limited subsidiary, the Asset Purchase Facility Limited, did not buy freshly issued zero coupon bonds. It bought government bonds from the secondary market. However, since the interests earned from the purchased bonds are returned to the Treasury, the effect is the same. Zero cost (well almost zero, except for administration fees) to the government’s fiscal budget.

Secondly, the bonds purchased by the Asset Purchase Facility were not perpectual bonds. They were probably bonds of varying maturities, perhaps some five-year, some ten-year etc. However, if the bonds are replaced with new purchases whenever they mature, £375 billion worth of government bonds are effectively “retired” from the market. In other words they have the same effect as being £375 billion of perpectual bonds.

And finally, the bonds were purchased from the secondary market; they were not freshly issued bonds as suggested by Adair Turner. On the face of it, no new “free” money was created for the government by the actions of the Asset Purchase Facility. However, since £375 billion bonds have been effectively made zero coupon and perpectual, we might as well view them as having been “forgiven”. And £375 billion bonds forgiven would create space for the government to issue £375 billion new bonds without any additional fiscal deficit or any additional dent to the fiscal budget.

Therefore it seems that the actions of the Asset Purchase Facility had the same effect as the disguised helicopter money that Adair Turner suggested, perhaps just a tad subtler.

Next, we consider how helicopter money might be dropped. Fifteen years ago, the Japanese government gave every household a monetary coupon to spend. And spent the households did, but total consumption didn’t increase, nary a bit, because households simply used the coupons to buy what they would have bought anyway, and saved their own money.

The lesson from that Japanese experiment is that giving money to the private sector (i.e. giving money to households and/or private non-financial firms) does not stimulate consumption if the private sector is in no mood to spend or invest. Richard Koo of Nomura Research Institute explains it this way. After Japan’s 1991 financial crisis, the balance sheets of Japanese households and firms (both financial and non-financial) were badly damaged. So they were in no mood to spend or invest; nor were they in the mood to borrow and be deeper in debt; their main preoccupation was to repair their balance sheets. And even if some households or firms wanted to borrow, the banks were in no mood to lend, for they too were busy repairing their own balance sheets.

Richard Koo calls this scenario a balance sheet recession. The only option during a balance sheet recession is for the government to spend on expenditures that otherwise would not have been spent. Fiscal spending on tax rebates and sending a cheque to every household don’t work in a balance sheet recession. What might work is (heaven forbid) new military expenditure. Or perhaps, in the case of the UK, an expansion of the planned high speed rail, HS2.

In summary, today, we ought to take a leaf out of the book of Victorian Britain, which built a network of railroads that served as Britain’s economic backbone for more than a century.

Ben Bernanke:
quote "The deflation speech saddled me with the nickname 'Helicopter Ben.' In a discussion of hypothetical possibilities for combating deflation I mentioned an extreme tactic—a broad-based tax cut combined with money creation by the central bank to finance the cut. Milton Friedman had dubbed the approach a 'helicopter drop' of money. " unquote.

The helicopter money will finally move to those who have no need of it, which is the corporations who have piles of cash on their balance sheet and who do not have viable projects for expansion. There is no dearth of savings, but huge dearth of innovation that would drive investments.

Helicopter money is a monetary illusion, which is also the hallmark of fiscal under-performance with a pro-cyclical policy guiding it to its nemesis.

In 2009 the Bank of England incorporated the Asset Purchase Facility Limited, which purchased £375billion of government bonds. Each year, the interest incomes that the Asset Purchase Facility Limited earned from these purchased bonds were returned to the Treasury. So, in effect, these government bonds were turned into zero coupon bonds.

Now, if we examine the assets in the 2015 balance sheet of this Asset Purchase Facility Limited, we find that it is still holding about £375 billion worth of government bonds in 2015.

It is not clear if these $375 billion of bonds are exactly the same bonds that were initially purchased. Probably some are not, because some bonds might have matured during the intervening years. In that case, one would infer that the Asset Purchase Facility had purchased and replaced those bonds that matured. So this had the effect of rolling over (or refinancing) maturing bonds.

And if we examine the liabilities of the balance sheet, we find that the purchase of the £375billion bond was funded by loans from the Bank of England.

If the Asset Purchase Facility continues indefinitely to hold £375 billion of government bonds and return the coupon interests to the Treasury, isn’t that sort of like helicopter money?

This is how Ben Bernanke describes helicopter drop:
In more prosaic and realistic terms, a “helicopter drop” of money is an expansionary fiscal policy—an increase in public spending or a tax cut—financed by a permanent increase in the money stock.

As far as I can make out, what you are describing is about what central banks normally do. As far as I know, interest on their bonds is normally returned to the government.

Normally, when central banks buy bonds, it reduces interest rates, which stimulates the economy mostly because people find it more attractive to buy houses. The problem now is that interest rates can't drop much past 0, so this doesn't work. They can print more money, but it doesn't increase borrowing because the money just goes into excess reserves in the bank. Almost (but not quite) useless.
The idea of helicopter money is to get around this block. Instead of providing money to banks, who will just put it in their excess reserves, send it out to people who will spend it.

"On the contrary, in many advanced economies, profits are high – even reaching record levels – owing partly to lower input costs."

Being the lower input costs reductions on the salaries of workers. Speaking from my own reality, I'm Portuguese, and I work on IT at one of this country's largest companies. I see people starting working here now doing what I did a decade ago with some 25% lower salary then what I received then.And trust me when I say that It wasn't that much to begin with.

The perception I have is this is not just a problem here but in many other places in Europe, no wonder then that agregate demand is low. People are not waiting for prices to get lower, they dont buy goods simply bacause they can't.

Exactly right.
It's all due to a lack of spending. And the way to get people to spend is to give them more money. That could be done in the conventional way by governments borrowing newly created money from the ECB and spending it on things that put more money into the hands of real people and businesses, or it could be done unconventionally by the ECB printing money and sending every European taxpayer a cheque, or something like that. Forcing wages down in the crisis countries the way you describe will do the job eventually, as more business is attracted by the low labour costs, but it will be a very slow, painful process, wasting huge amounts of human potential.

This is absurd.
Unemployment in Greece is around 25%. Spain 20%. Italy and Portugal 12%. And I am sure that is only a small part of the story. Youth unemployment is sure to be far higher, and many will have stopped looking for work. This is the way the depths of the great depression were here in Canada. Think of the human misery and the immense waste of potential. And all because we cannot seem to figure out how to print a bit of money and put it in the pockets of people who will spend it. And because of well-fed complacency like this.

As I watch Mr. Draghi answer question after question mentioning H.M. during his ECB press conference, it becomes clearer just how closely such policies are the contemporary version of 'bread and circuses'', meaning capitalist crowd control, in the absence of it's less overtly comical form, inflation.

Salvation since 2008 meltdown has simply been more n more Debt Finance.
Helicopter money is tantamount to Debt free Finance - cash injections via Universal Basic Income perhaps the modus operandi.
Everyone being guaranteed UBI - has several salutary consequences, hitherto undiscovered.
With valuations having undergone monetization beyond collective imagination, the need for cash injections was inevitable.
Once the NAV upward sloping trajectories flattened and then went downwards.
Debt creation had not been guided by Central Banks but when meltdowns overtook macroeconomics, salvage was mandatory.
So far, since 2008, Central Banks have expanded their balance sheet by nearly $ 8 trillion worldwide.
All of it so far is 100 % Debt - without a modicum of Debt free Finance, the salvage operations are unsustainable.
Hence, the need for Helicopter money - moreover, the time for UBI perhaps opportune.
UBI serves several objectives, with additional income whetting the appetite for talent.
The convulsions over Inequality may need UBI to ensure income sharing propositions, unless fiscal tinkering alone delivers.

This is exactly why both Turner and these modern H-M ccritics get it all wrong.
The place to inject the helicopter-money, or Overt Money Finance is INTO the government's budget where the spending target is ALREADY agreed, and the inflow to incomes really comes from reduced taxation and debt interest payments. It all right in HERE:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/2990/text

There is no case against public money issued without debt to stimulate demand.
Let's just DO IT.

Many problems in this. First, helicopter money doesn't have to be a gift; loans from central banks directly to taxpayers can have the same effects. Second, loans against income of that sort would undo a major distortion in monetary policy -- the fact that central banks can now only lend against assets and tend to overdo that lending and over-inflate asset prices when economic conditions are weak. A balanced lending agenda which included loans against income directly to taxpayers (or to governments, when governments are in a position to borrow) as well as against
assets would produce far fewer distortions.

It would also likely put the Bank's independence at risk. For the chief rationale for resorting to helicopter money is the absence of stimulus programs from fiscal policy.

Politicians would be unlikely, it seems to me, to regard with equanimity any attempts to circumvent the structural reforms and austerity programs they have put in place at the cost of so much political capital.

In a liberated market workers will naturally get high enough wages to pay for essentials like healthy food, healthy housing, competitive education and sufficient healthcare. If this fully liberated market fails to exist, the state can provide and banks can credit these essential needs. But analog to your helicopter money example they should not because employers will calculate with this support and lower wages further. In this sense, your argumentation supports helicopter money to provide for a general basic income while private businesses should fight for talent only by providing additional income.

See also:

In the first year of his presidency, Donald Trump has consistently sold out the blue-collar, socially conservative whites who brought him to power, while pursuing policies to enrich his fellow plutocrats.

Sooner or later, Trump's core supporters will wake up to this fact, so it is worth asking how far he might go to keep them on his side.

A Saudi prince has been revealed to be the buyer of Leonardo da Vinci's "Salvator Mundi," for which he spent $450.3 million. Had he given the money to the poor, as the subject of the painting instructed another rich man, he could have restored eyesight to nine million people, or enabled 13 million families to grow 50% more food.

While many people believe that technological progress and job destruction are accelerating dramatically, there is no evidence of either trend. In reality, total factor productivity, the best summary measure of the pace of technical change, has been stagnating since 2005 in the US and across the advanced-country world.

The Bollywood film Padmavati has inspired heated debate, hysterical threats of violence, and a ban in four states governed by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party – all before its release. The tolerance that once accompanied India’s remarkable diversity is wearing thin these days.

The Hungarian government has released the results of its "national consultation" on what it calls the "Soros Plan" to flood the country with Muslim migrants and refugees. But no such plan exists, only a taxpayer-funded propaganda campaign to help a corrupt administration deflect attention from its failure to fulfill Hungarians’ aspirations.

French President Emmanuel Macron wants European leaders to appoint a eurozone finance minister as a way to ensure the single currency's long-term viability. But would it work, and, more fundamentally, is it necessary?

The US decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel comes in defiance of overwhelming global opposition. The message is clear: the Trump administration is determined to dictate the Israeli version of peace with the Palestinians, rather than to mediate an equitable agreement between the two sides.